Recensioni degli utenti

Corporate greed, eco-activism, terrorism, and a window-cleaner ex-military girl taking down the bad guys who seized her building.

I'll be brief.

This movie is neither particularly fun nor satisfying. The premise shows promise but reveals its hand too early and quickly loses steam. The action is serviceable, the villains are a yawn, and the characters, their motivations, dialogue, and their resolution are all too generic to leave a lasting impression. On top of that, the pacing drags in places, the ending fails to deliver, and the emotional beats between the siblings never quite land. Does it attempt to make a statement about environmental destruction and corporate accountability? If so, it does so in the dullest way possible.

Die Hard, this is not, so the comparisons are moot. Here, the villains hold all the cards (they control the police, the building, and the hostages) and yet the heroine somehow becomes an inexplicable problem for them. There's a script issue, but also an execution problem, as Miss Ridley is competent in the role, but her casual attitude while committing "action" feels jarring and undermines any sense of real danger.

At least it is short (90 minutes, and it feels even shorter). Watch if you want a generic action movie.

Okay, is this movie winning Oscars? No. Was it a fun watch? Well, yes. Yes it was. Daisy Ridley was solid in her role. I wish we had more Clive Owen. I think the movie would have been better if he played the role of Noah Santos. But overall, it was a fun action movie if you go in to it without high expectations which is what I did. They did give this movie a budget of $25 million which is quite impressive for a movie that wasn't a theater release. My only complaint, cheesy writing and situations that defied logic. But overall I had fun watching it. It kept my attention for almost two hours. If you're bored and can't find anything to watch, give this a go. Heck, it's better than most offerings on Netflix lol.

Don't watch this its dreadful. Really bad script terrible story completely unbelievable. Makes Daisy Ridley seem like a terrible actor and she isn't. It's just ridiculous. Do the writers really think we can watch this , or people ever behave like this ? It's farcical. More like a school play than actual serious drama. It gets 5 on here currently which I think is extremely unfair , and some fairly decent films get 5. This needs to be 1 or 2 I wouldn't waste time watching. I can't submit this until I waffle for 600 words. Give it a miss folks save your time for something else. Watch Godfather instead that gets 9.

While I had indeed not heard about the 2025 action thriller "Cleaner", when I stumbled upon it by random chance, of course I had to check it out. Especially since the movie had Clive Owen on the cast list.

The storyline in the movie was adequate. Sure, it was a watchable action thriller, but I have to say that I was left with an overwhelming sensation of having just watched a 2025 take on the 1988 movie "Die Hard". It was a bit odd that writers Simon Uttley, Paul Andrew Williams and Matthew Orton collectively couldn't muster more than a remake of the 1988 "Die Hard" movie. But hey, "Cleaner" was a watchable movie, nonetheless.

I was only familiar with leading actress Daisy Ridley and Clive Owen on the cast list. And it was a shame that Clive Owen wasn't given a bigger part to play in the movie, because he could definitely have spruced up the movie quite a bit.

There is a fair amount of action throughout the course of the movie, and it looks good. And I will say that it definitely helped to lift up the movie.

"Cleaner" is a movie worth checking out if you enjoyed the 1988 movie "Die Hard". But this time it is with a female lead.

My rating of director Martin Campbell's 2025 action thriller "Cleaner" lands on a six out of ten stars.

I really had a blast with this film. Of course it's no Oscar material (what is, these days, actually...) and of course 'Die Hard' is not very far away, but please, why all this overthinking? Just try to enjoy a movie without analyzing it too much. There's a great setting, the actors are doing a decent job. The actress playing Joey is sexy, beautiful and has humor. Too bad to see one of the main characters go quite early in the story. I wasn't bothered by the cliché of activism, eco-terrorism and so, since a lot of it doesn't make sense.

The real bad guy wants to pull it off, but is a desperate wreck to my taste. He knows he's eventually has to pick the shortest straw. Funky action flick.

I feel many of the reviews posted here are being very unfair to this film. We feel the same exhilaration for our loner character taking on the terrorists as we did with the Bruce Willis flick, and the fact that it is a strong woman character gives the film an extra punch. Both Daisy Ridley and Taz Skylar deliver standout performances. The action scenes are just as thrilling to watch as they were in Die Hard. I'd also argue that there is far more character development here than there ever was in Dire Hard. Also, almost all the user reviews completely ignore the unique brother - sister aspect to the story. Of course its "generic," It's a genre picture. But so was Die Hard to begin with. I found the movie great fun and thoroughly enjoyable.

Plot twist with Clive Owen threw me for a bit of a loop and got me more engaged as the plot holes were a bit obnoxious. How anyone making this movie thought daisy's wig looked good was beyond me. It's distractingly bad. But she did good with the action scenes. I liked the actual main villain and he kept the movie entertaining. The chaos and then weird slow down calm talks with the autistic brother got to be way to many and broke the flow of the action scenes. Go in with low expectations and you'll be mildly entertained for under 2 hours. I've watched better and I've seen much worse. People giving it under 3 stars are being ridiculous.

The plot feels like a recycled version of something that's been done countless times before, with the only twist being a nerdy character carrying a "Thor hammer," as if begging for mercy from the younger audience. There's little to no effort put into character development, so we couldn't care less about the protagonist or any of the characters, for that matter. There's no suspense, no mystery, just a predictably failed attempt at being a pure action film, which also fell flat. It's hard to find anything positive to say, but here's an attempt: the villain and the cop lady somewhat tried to carry the rest of the cast, but their efforts hardly made a difference. Picture quality was good, lol. You can invite a girl over and play this when you are not really interested in watching. This is one of those movies where you wonder why they even bothered making it, and you're relieved it wasn't any longer.

Yeah, the movie isn't perfect, but I had a good time. Showed a female protagonist kick ass without being weird about it. Not many movies where you see that. If you like movies with unique premises you will like this one. It is an atmospheric movie that is largely set inside the sky-tower building and the windows outside of it, where the protagonist is a window cleaner stuck on a lift outside the tall building and is trying to help stop the terrorists inside the building while largely restrained to the lift. It was effective as a thriller as it kept me at the edge of my seat. I would rate this movie 7 stars instead of 6 but the reason I gave it a 6 is because I just think it could have been done better. I left feeling that I had a good time, but it was just decent and not excellent.

So we are meant to believe the heroine is ex Special Reconnaissance Regiment. Crème de la crème of the UK Special Forces community yet she wakes up late for work. Is crabby (messy) at home. Is forgetful. Unless towards her brother. Gets annoyed at her boss for giving her work when she is the one who is late. So shes useless.

Ah but she beat a man on the Commando course, he slagged her off and she quit.

I'm confused?

Also, why didn't she shoot the bad guy? Literally had a gun pointed at his head but instead did whay he said and shot at civilians making the police believe her the perpritrator. Of which, in reality she would have been shot by the police.

That scene allowed the movie to go on for another hour when they could have ended it there.

Again, confused.

Daisy Ridley takes the lead in "Cleaner", a tense, neat, understated action thriller that swaps Hollywood bombast for British grit. Think "Die Hard" but quieter & very English .

Ridley plays Joey, a London window cleaner trapped in a skyscraper siege. She's tough but restrained, less quips, more resolve. The action keeps things gripping without excess, with scaffold chases and tight hallway fights.

Clive Owen no Hans Gruber, but his deputy certainly rises to occasion. Some moments drag, but Ridley's controlled intensity keeps it compelling.

So what if the film doesn't reinvent the genre, but it delivers a sharp, subtle take on the lone-hero formula. If you want an action thriller with more realism and less spectacle, this one's worth a watch.

My god this is film was awful, it's a die hard rip off with girl bosses, just nobody believes the girl boss.

This was like watching a spoof because it was so comical how bad it was. There are many good female lead films and this was not one of them. I would not recommend wasting time watching this film, it felt like it was made just to empower woman but instead just made them look like a joke.

The script is cringe, the acting is cringe. The girls are the heroes in almost all areas even on the bad guy team. To be enjoyable it needs to have a likeable character, script or even plausibility, it's so far fetched I was half expecting Daisy Ridley to start flying after she became the black widow.

I'm joking, of course. Looks a lot like someone was channeling Die Hard when they wrote the script. Every time I thought they weren't going to take from that movie, they found another homage...

Ridley is not bad as an action star. I'd watch another movie with her in it. Clive Own, who wasn't in the movie enough to warrant third billing, was fine. Matthew Tuck, on the other hand, was unbelievable as the autistic brother. I think that distracted me a lot.

It had a predictable ending, one I will not divulge here. All in all, not particularly good. All in all, not particularly bad...

See this one after you've seen every other movie, just for closure...

The answer is this film. Make the two stars do the bare minimum so you don't have to pay them too much? I don't really get it tho. Like all the money went to the production and Campbell? Clive Owen essentially pulls a Bruce Willis here. Total screen time probably didn't exceed 5 minutes and you got Daisy Ridley outside of the building for 3/4 of the film, doing nothing when she should've just did something to begin with and save us all the stupid ass runtime. This movie would be over in 40 minutes. I'm rambling along here cuz there's a minimum characters required to post a review apparently. I don't write reviews that often...

I saw this one at the theaters about 30 minutes before writing this review.

Overall - the movie is watchable; the 90 minutes didn't drag. But I wasn't blown away by the quality. I anticipate that I may forget this movie in short time

What I like: Daisy Ridley is likable; the scenes with her brother are charming; and I like the London setting. The action scenes are well-done. I was concerned, based on the premise, about scenes where a tiny girl overpowers some 200 pound men, but really - the movie doesn't over-do it. Daisy's character relies more on stealth than force/strength. The window-cleaning scenes are also fun. The movie captures the tenseness of being so high off the ground in some scenes. Nothing in the movie, from dialogue to CGI, is cringe or embarassingly low-quality

What I didn't like: the biggest flaw, by far, is that there really isn't much that we haven't seen before. The movie is an amalgam of action movies cliches, borrowing many elements from Die Hard and the Jean Claude Van Damme/Jason Statham movies. The entire plot basically goes in the direction that you would predict, aside from one early major death (no spoilers; I won't say). The other main issue is that the villains aren't as charming or interesting as the lead. The main villain is Lucas Santos, and there is a lot of attention towards his hatred of humanity (the movie itself seemingly plays on his views by referencing Thanos, who advocated killing half of humanity). Overall, Lucas Santos is too over-the-top psychotic, almost to the point of cartoonish. His diatribes against humanity begin to drag on. I also would've cast a different actor in that role. The actor who plays Lucas doesn't impart the fear that this role required.

6.5/10.

This movie made me so angry. I can forgive stupid plots... but not like this. This was just too damn stupid. I saw the bad ratings and thought "Clive Owen and Daisy Ridley, I'm sure I can still enjoy it". I was wrong. It would've been fine if an ex-soldier (Ridley) just slowly takes out terrorists, like Die Hard, just dumber. That's something I can enjoy. But Ridley's character was just so damn inept. It was truly painful to watch. I later saw that three people got writing credits. That's usually a sign that the script was passed from writer to writer in a desperate attempt to fix it and it never ever works. The acting was alright, director too. Not great, but OK. But the script was a total dumpster fire. I am still so angry at this movie.